Sen. Bob Corker planning Cuba hearings

By David Morton, Nooga.com. Jan. 7, 2015 - Sen. Bob Corker said Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold "robust hearings" on U.S.-Cuba relations in the weeks ahead.

..... President Barack Obama announced a deal to begin restoring diplomatic relations with the island country 330 miles south of Miami for the first time in more than 50 years.

"Well, obviously the policy we've had in place in Cuba since 1962 has not yielded a result we hoped it would yield. I think that's pretty apparent," Corker said in a conference call with reporters. "On the other hand, I think the hearings that we'll have will illuminate the direct effects the embargo itself has had."

It's one of many questions Corker said will be covered in upcoming committee hearings. Cuba was "off the front burner" for many years until Obama's announcement last month. The senator said those hearings will inform his thinking about whether the U.S. should have an ambassador there. (link)

Top Stories

Latinos for Tennessee Opposes President Obama's Push for Cuba Relations

From Latinos for Tennessee - In the middle of this Christmas season, Latinos for Tennessee is shocked and saddened by yesterday's news that President Obama has decided to fundamentally change the nature of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. Once again, our president has chosen to entirely bypass the nation's legislature and proceed with his own agenda that undermines our country's strength in the global marketplace.

While we celebrate the release of the American prisoner Alan Gross from Cuban prison, we are dismayed that the president would open the door to negotiations with a terrorist regime. This dramatic change in stance sends a message to rogue governments around the world that the US will not stand in strong opposition to lawlessness and oppression, but rather that we have become weak and lax in our fight to preserve and promote democracy. Indeed, this is a sad day in the history of our nation.

Furthermore, while some may argue that the US has been too harsh on Cuba by not allowing diplomatic relations since 1961, in fact, the opportunity to re-establish those relations has always existed; however, the Castro regime has been unwilling to change and allow basic democratic liberties to its citizens. There are no free and fair elections, there are no independent political parties, and there is no free speech. Opponents of the Castro regime live with the fear of being imprisoned, or worse, if they participate in any activities that run counter to the ruling party. It has been the Cuban regime's unwillingness to change that has prevented economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Therefore, Latinos for Tennessee stands in opposition to President Obama's push for normalized relations with Cuba where nothing is asked of Cuba in return. We continue to call for liberty, human rights, free elections, freedom of speech and an end to the oppression endured by the Cuban people.

Top Stories

Rand Paul agrees with Obama: Opening up Cuba is ‘a good idea’

Rand Paul agrees with Obama: Opening up Cuba is ‘a good idea’

Top Stories

Normailizng relations with Cuba: It is about time!

Today President Obama moved to normalize relations with Cuba. I am going to shock some people who may assume they think they know what I think; I applaud President Obama's action to normalize relations with Cuba.

This is a bold step and in my view about 35 years late. Cuba, along with North Korea, are the last two real Communist Countries left in the world. Sure, there are still several other one-party states ruled by a Communist party but they are no longer totalitarian. There are Communist parties ruling these countries but they are not Communist countries. They are authoritarian states. They may exercise absolute political power but not totalitarian authority. A totalitarian state allows no other spheres of influence. In a totalitarian state, thought control is exercised and the state must suppress the influence of family, religion, economy, and arts. Every function of society must serve the state.

There is a difference between being a state where all political power is held by a single party and a state which controls absolutely every aspect of person's life. Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Ho Chi Migh's Vietnam were totalitarian. Not so today. Russia is no longer communist at all, of course. In China and Vietnam, there is a thriving private sector in those countries and there is room for different points of view, different taste, access to other ideas and an opportunity for entrepreneurship and pursuit of happiness.  China has millionaires. People can read western books and watch western movies and their is glamour and fashion and pre-communist culture is not suppressed.

Even before the end of he Cold War, some countries of Eastern Europe had already essentially abandoned Communism as an economic theory. The agriculture sectors had already been reprivatized in many countries, because otherwise the Communist could not freed their people. People were wanting consumer goods and little by little countries like Yugoslavia and some others were beginning to change.

Actually, I think the time to lift the Cuban embargo would have been about a year after the fall of the Berlin wall. Once Cuban lost their mentor and benefactor the Soviet Union, I think it would have been impossible for Cuban to remain doctrinaire Communist, if we would have ended our embargo. With contract with the outside world and visitors wanting to spend money in Cuba, and Cubans' with money wanting to spend, Cuba would have succumbed to the opportunity for a private sector to flourish.  We have already seen some of this. Cuba has allowed people to have the deed to their homes, they have allowed a larger private sector, they have allowed a private sector taxi service and allowed people to own computers and cell phones. With visitors with money visiting the inland, entrepreneurs would have gained more influence even without the right to vote for their leaders.

If we would have ended the embargo thirty-five year ago, you would have seen joint partnership to develop hotels and resorts with Cubans and Cuban would have had to modify their communist economy to make those investment more attractive and secure. I think it we would have ended our embargo 35 years ago, Cuba would be a much freer country today. The greater contract with outsiders would have created a greater demand for consumer goods and greater realization that Cuba was not a workers paradise. It would have proven difficult to maintain revolutionary fervor in a country in which people interacted with the enemy and benefited from interaction with the enemy.

In my view, U.S. sanctions have served to remove the positive influences that American businesses, workers, religious groups, students and tourists would have had in promoting U.S. values and human rights.  I doubt Communist Cuba would be communist country today, had we not isolated them and given them the American enemy to rally against.

I can understand the view of those Cuban refugees and Americans of Cuban descent, who want Cuba to crumble and the old order restored. I don't think it will ever happen, but I do think Cuba can evolve and join the rest of the world.

We lost 50,000 American lives in Vietnam, but still eventually normalized relations with that county; why not Cuba?

Top Stories

Communism is dying in Cuba: The US should end the embargo now.

This week Cuba took another big step toward ending Communism. The Cuban government announced it will dismiss more than 500,000 workers — 10 percent of its payroll — and will allow a major expansion of private economic activity.

Since Fidel Castro’s ill health and retirement, we have seen positive change taking place in Cuba. The government has legalized private taxicabs, it has given individuals the deed to their homes, it has allowed Cubans to own cell phones, it has permitted Cubans to stay in luxury hotels, and it has encouraged and expanded private farms. These changes are significant and encouraging. This announcement about cutting the government payroll and allowing greater private sector economic activity is another significant development. The U.S. government should announce that due to these positive developments we are immediately ending the travel restriction and trade embargo of Cuba.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and perhaps as far back as the Nixon opening to China, our policy toward Cuba has been wrong-headed, illogical, and counterproductive. Communism would have probably ended in Cuba years ago if we had ended the embargo.

The embargo of Cuba began in 1960. The intent was to pressure Castro to democratize. The policy failed. Instead, it had the result of pushing Cuba further into the arms of the Soviet Union. The embargo made a martyr out of Castro and helped prop up his regime. Cuba has been able to blame all of their failings on the United States and the embargo rather than Castro’s socialist policies.

I realize that Cuba is still a Communist dictatorship but I don’t think we need to wait until Cuba establishes democracy before we lift the embargo. We did not wait for democracy to flourish in China or Vietnam before we engaged in trade with those nations. We did not demand that China and Vietnam free all political prisoners before we normalized relations. While neither China nor Vietnam are perfect democracies, neither are they orthodox Communist nations. Our engagement and trade surely contributed to the liberalization in those two countries.

If the US would end the embargo and travel restrictions, we would see an acceleration of Cuba’s transformation. If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors. With opportunities to make money, we would see an evolving Cuban entrepreneurial class. With more dollars to spend, Cubans would not be dependent on the government for everything, other spheres of influence would emerge, and the socialist totalitarian mold would be broken.

Our policy toward Cuba has been a failure and we should end the embargo now. Cuba is changing despite the policy of the United States. We should help accelerate the change that is taking place in Cuba by ending the travel restrictions and trade embargo. Lifting the embargo will not change us, but it will change Cuba. The cold war is over. Lift the embargo now.

Top Stories

Is Obama following the George W Bush foreign policy?

While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.

Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.

Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.

I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .

In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.

When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.

Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.

Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”

I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.

On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.

What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?

Top Stories

Bill would drop travel restrictions to Cuba

By Alexia Campbell, South Florida Sun Sentinel, February 10, 2009

While most of the nation focused on the stimulus bill winding through Congress, nine representatives introduced a bill calling for an end to the 46-year-old ban on travel to Cuba. (link)

Commentary
It is past time to lift the restrictions on travel to Cuba.

Tourist can freely travel to Vietnam or China but not Cuba. What kind of logic is that? Americans are not even prohibited from visiting countries such as Iran or North Korea.

We not only need to lift travel restrictions on Cuba, we need to lift the trade embargo. During the recent campaign, Obama promised he would change our policy toward Cuba. That is one campaign promise I hope he keeps. We do not need to wait any longer.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and perhaps as far back as the Nixon opening to China, our policy toward Cuba has been wrong-headed, illogical, and counterproductive.

The embargo of Cuba began in 1960. The intent was to pressure Castro to democratize. The policy failed. Instead, it had the result of pushing Cuba further into the arms of the Soviet Union. The embargo made a martyr out of Castro and helped prop up his regime. Cuba has been able to blame all of their failings on the United States and the embargo rather than Castro’s socialist policies.

I realize that Cuba is still a Communist dictatorship but I don’t think we need to wait until Cuba establishes democracy before we lift the embargo. We did not wait for democracy to flourish in China or Vietnam before we engaged in trade with those nations. We did not demand that China and Vietnam free all political prisoners before we normalized relations. While neither China nor Vietnam are perfect democracies, neither are they orthodox Communist nations. Our engagement and trade surely contributed to the liberalization in those two countries.

Since Castro’s ill health and retirement, we have seen positive change taking place in Cuba. The government has legalized private taxicabs, it has given individuals the deed to their homes, it has allowed Cubans to own cell phones, it has permitted Cubans to stay in luxury hotels, and it has encouraged and expanded private farms. These changes are significant and encouraging.

If the US would end the embargo and travel restrictions, we would see an acceleration of Cuba’s transformation. If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors. With opportunities to make money, we would see an evolving Cuban entrepreneurial class. With more dollars to spend, Cubans would not be dependent on the government for everything, other spheres of influence would emerge, and the socialist totalitarian mold would be broken.

Cuba is changing despite the policy of the United States. We should help accelerate the change that is taking place in Cuba by ending the travel restrictions and trade embargo. Lifting the embargo will not change us but it will change Cuba. The cold war is over. Lift the embargo now.

Top Stories

Reexamining U.S. Cuba Policy

December 4, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL, 60680

Re: Reexamining U.S. Cuba Policy

Dear President-elect Obama:

We would like to extend to you our sincere congratulations on your historic election to the presidency of the United States.

We are pleased that your promises of change include U.S. policy toward Cuba. It is time for the United States to rethink its approach to the Cuban government and the Cuban people. You have already indicated that you support suspending restrictions on family remittances, visits, and humanitarian care packages from Cuban Americans. These are excellent first steps but we urge you to also commit to a more comprehensive examination of U.S. policy, one that will have the power to transform Cuban society without costing U.S. taxpayers and one that will greatly benefit U.S. businesses.

When Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy initiated restrictions against Cuba, they did so in the face of clear national security challenges and with the support of much of the international community. Today, the United States maintains the embargo despite the absence of an obvious national security threat and against nearly unanimous international opposition. Moreover, as countries like Venezuela and China invest increasing amounts of money in the Cuban economy, it is clear that the embargo is not having – and will not have – the type of economic impact that might influence the behavior of the Cuban government. It is time to consider new approaches that would benefit U.S. national security and economic interests, as well as the Cuban people.

Current policies towards Cuba have clearly not achieved their objectives. Without the support of our allies and the larger international community, U.S. sanctions serve only to remove the positive influences that American businesses, workers, religious groups, students and tourists have in promoting U.S. values and human rights. Sanctions are also blunt instruments that generally harm the poorest people of the target country rather than that country’s leaders.

There is no better example of the ineffectiveness of unilateral sanctions than the case of Cuba. During the Cold War, Soviet assistance helped bolster the Cuban economy in spite of U.S. sanctions. The Cuban economy struggled – but did not collapse – during the “special period” in Cuba following the end of Soviet aid, while Fidel Castro was able to blame shortages at the time on the U.S. embargo. Today, tourism from Europe and Canada, investment from China, Latin America, Canada and Europe, and a more diversified economy have helped to stabilize the Cuban economy and marginalize the impact of U.S. sanctions. Venezuelan financial assistance in the form of petroleum sold at below market prices has also helped prop up the regime.

While the current isolation of Cuba has far outlasted its original purpose, U.S. policies impose real costs on America. For American businesses, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated in 2001 that the Cuba embargo costs American exporters up to $1.2 billion annually in lost sales. The U.S. government focuses attention and resources on the Cuba embargo at the expense of more urgent pursuits such as halting flows of money to al Qaeda and keeping terrorists and criminals out of the United States. Using scarce resources to investigate and prosecute minor violations of Cuba sanctions ignores the infinitely greater challenge of securing the homeland from more serious national security threats.

The real cost, however, is the influence that the United States has lost by voluntarily isolating itself from Cuba during an important moment of transition. Far from providing leverage, U.S. policies threaten to make the United States virtually irrelevant to the future of Cuba.

Your administration has a unique opportunity to take steps to end nearly 50 years of isolation from Cuba and the Cuban people. We support the complete removal of all trade and travel restrictions on Cuba. We recognize that change may not come all at once, but it must start somewhere, and it must begin soon.

The United States could engage in bilateral discussions with the Cuban government. Beginning a dialogue on issues of mutual interest could begin the process of repairing the complicated relationship between the United States and Cuba, but that process will take time.

The United States should immediately remove travel restrictions and allow Americans to act as ambassadors of freedom and American values to Cuba. From farmers and manufacturers to human rights and religious groups, as well as a large and growing number of Cuban Americans, the American people increasingly recognize the unfairness and incongruity of restricting travel to Cuba. It is simply wrong that American citizens cannot travel freely to Havana but are not restricted by the United States from traveling to Pyongyang and Tehran.

Your administration should also consider removing certain restrictions on trade to allow American companies to help Cuba to respond more effectively and meaningfully to the devastating humanitarian crisis in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. For example, the United States could exempt agricultural machinery, heavy equipment and other exports from the embargo which would provide the goods and technology needed to rebuild from recent storms.

The United States could also license direct banking services in order to facilitate these sales. American businesses stand ready to help Cuba rebuild and hope to play a constructive role in reaching out to the people of Cuba.

We urge you to support the immediate reconsideration of U.S. Cuba policy, and to convene a bipartisan commission tasked with looking at U.S. policies in their entirety. Continuation of the status quo could leave the United States isolated from the Cuban people for another generation. As you have said, the time for change is now.

Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Society of Travel Agents
Business Roundtable
Coalition for Employment through Exports
Emergency Committee for American Trade
Grocery Manufacturers Association
National Foreign Trade Council
National Retail Federation
Organization for International Investment
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Council for International Business
USA*Engage

Comment:
I could not agree more. Certainly ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and perhaps for as far back as the Nixon opening to China, our policy toward Cuba has been wrong-headed, illogical, and counterproductive. We have trade and commerse with out former enemy Vietnam but not Cuba; what kind of logic is that. Vietnam is now a less doctrinaire Communist country, no doubt in part due to trade with the west. Opening commerse and trade with Cuba will not change our society but it will change theirs. Changing our policy toward Cuba is one promise I hope Obama keeps.

Top Stories

Fidel Castro endorces Obama

While the McCain ad featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton has been getting a lot of media attention, the above ad has been running in Florida for several weeks now, virtually unnoticed. This ad is obviously an attempt to woo the Anti-Castro Cuban voters of Florida. It really doesn't inform; it inflames and distorts. All this ad says is that Castro endorses Obama.


Since John McCain has called for a continuation of the Cuban embargo and Obama has hinted that, under certain circumstances, he would be open to lifting the embargo, I would not be surprised if the Cuban dictators d0 not prefer that Obama be elected the next President of the United States. It seems that the aging Cuban revolutionaries are looking for a way for Cuba to rejoin the modern world. Obama may be willing to let them; McCain wants to continue the policies that may have been wise for a previous era but are now counterproductive.

Even if Castro has endorsed Obama, one cannot stop unsolicited endorsements. The candidate cannot be blamed for those who happen to advocate his election. If David Duke or some other racist or despicable person endorsed John McCain would it be acceptable to run such an ad modeled on the above? I think not.

This is what Fact Check (link) had to say about the ad: "The quote comes from an article by Castro that was largely critical of Obama. Castro also complained that Obama views the Cuban revolution as 'anti-democratic' and that Obama makes the 'exact same' arguments used by U.S. administrations 'to justify their crimes against our country."

That hardly sounds like an endorsement.

Fact check goes on to say that in a speech given by Castro, he summarized a speech Obama had made regarding Cuban policy as saying, "Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it."

That is hardly a rousing endorsement.

Obama's position on Cuba is actually not that much different from McCain's. The differences are minuscule. Obama has said, "I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: If you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations."

I do not think we need to wait until Cuba establishes Democracy to lift the embargo. We did not wait for Democracy to flourish in China or Vietnam before we engaged in trade with those nations. We did not demand that China and Vietnam free all political prisoners before we normalized relations. While neither of these two countries are perfect democracies, neither are they orthodox Communist nations. Our engagement and trade surely led to liberalization in those nations. We can expedite positive change in Cuba by lifting the embargo. We should do it now. Unfortunately, neither McCain or Obama are taking that position.

I am not upset by the use of the Brittany and Paris image in the McCain ad, used to poke fun at Obama's "rock star" status. I am not upset by the use of ridicule and satire in political ads. I am not opposed to hard-hitting campaign ads. Also, pointing out differences with your opponent is valid. When complex topics have to be condensed to a 30 second ad or a billboard, then simplification may even lead to some unavoidable distortion of your opponent's positions. Nuances can't be explained on a billboard.

Ads like the above that distort and slander, however, are not acceptable in my book. I have always thought McCain was an honorable man. I am disappointed.

Top Stories

More Good News from Cuba

Cuba will OK more private taxis

Associated Press, Thursday, July 10, 2008

Cuba says it will lift a nine-year ban on new private taxis, approving a dash of private enterprise on the communist-run island and potentially legalizing thousands of unauthorized cabbies who cruise its cities in classic American cars. (link)

Commentary

This latest move by Cuba’s President Raul Castro represents another break with the policies of the past. Fidel Castro, the article reports, was always vocal about his dislike of cabs, even the legal, private cabs. He saw them as evil, but a necessary evil, needed to improve transportation. He viewed illegal cabs as a threat to the egalitarian goals of the revolution.

There are thousands of Cuban car owners who risk fines, confiscation of their vehicles as well as arrest, because they work as illegal taxi drivers. The new change in policy will allow them to become licensed and operate legally. The implementing details of the new policy, however, have not yet been announced.

This is a minor step, but an important one. It is not as grandiose as if Cuba had announced they were permitting oppositional political parties, free elections, or a free press, but it does represent a positive development. This development follows policy changes that let Cubans visit Cuban vacation resorts; own cell phones; own computers; take title to their homes and expanded private sector agriculture. Communism is withering away in Cuba, whether we encourage it or not.

Unfortunately, the US is proving to be the best friend the Communist regime has. There are only two, truly Communist states left in the world. They are North Korea and Cuba. We are in a position to have influence in Cuba. We could help Cubans cast off Communism by encouraging the positive developments, such as legalizing taxis, which are currently taking place. If the US would announce the end of the embargo and do away with travel restrictions, we would see an acceleration of Cuba’s transformation. American tourist dollars would create a market for more entrepreneurship and private enterprise in Cuba. This, in turn, would lead to many Cuban people no longer dependent on the government for their well being. It would create other spheres of influence. It would create a demand for more change. American investments in Cuba would lead to the creation of the rule of law and property rights.

At one time, when Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union, our policy toward Cuba may have been rational. That time is long past.

If President Bush wanted improve his legacy and do something that was low-risk but bold and positive he could announce that, due to the positive developments in Cuba, the US was immediately lifting the embargo. We should help Cuba rejoin the post-Communist, modern world by lifting the embargo now.

Top Stories

Cuban Reintroduces Private Farms. Time to End the Embargo!

Cuba giving land to private farmers
The Associated Press, 12:55 PM EST April 6, 2008

In a country where almost everyone works for the communist state, dairy farmer Jesus Diaz is his own boss. He likes it that way - and so does the government.

Living on a plot of land just big enough to graze four dairy cows, Diaz produces enough milk to sell about four quarts a day to the state.

This is independent production on a tiny scale, but it has proved so efficient that Cuba has decided on a major expansion of its program to distribute underused and fallow farmland to private farmers and cooperatives.

"It's a way for the land to end up in the hands of those who want to produce. I see it as a very good thing," said Diaz, 45. He received his land and cows from the state in 1996, and now hopes to get access to more property.

The government is preparing for a "massive distribution of land," Orlando Lugo, president of Cuba's national farming association, said last week. Private farmers have begun receiving land for the cash crops of coffee and tobacco, and will soon be able to lease state land for other crops.
The idea is to revolutionize farming, one tiny plot at a time. (link)

Commentary
End the Embargo Now!

This is more good news from Cuba. Following the announcement that individuals would be given the deed to their homes, that Cubans could own cell phones, that Cubans could stay in luxury hotels, now comes another liberalization. This could be profound. Just a little market capitalism will reveal the superiority of markets over a command economy. This could be the camel getting its nose under the tent. The US should use these changes as an occation for ending its failed policy of isolating Cuba.

The embargo of Cuba began in 1960 and may have been a mistake from the very first. The intent was to pressure Castro to Democratize. It had the result of pushing Cuba further into the arms of the Soviet Union. The embargo made a martyr out of Castro and helped prop us his regime. The poverty of Cuba was the result of Castro’s socialist policies, but he could blame it on the U.S embargo.

If one thinks that there was logic for the embargo in 1960, surely that logic no longer applies in 2008. The Soviet Union is dead. The only two remaining truly Communist countries in the world are North Korea and Cuba.

Cuba is changing; we could facilitate that change if we would simply end the embargo. American dollars flowing into Cuba would mean more Cubans with money to spend, which would lead to more opportunities for the flourishing of a non-government sector of the economy and more pressure for more liberalization.

I suspect that Cuba would welcome US investment and trade. Along with that trade and investment would come a clarification of private property rights and the rule of law.

If it is too bold of a move for the current administration to totally end the embargo all at once, they could do it incrementally. A good place to start would be with a change in the policy that restricts Cuban-American and Cubans living in America from traveling to Cuba. This would be a humanitarian move and the right thing to do. Let families unite.

These moves by Cuba to liberalize should be met with American efforts to reinforce good behavior. We should change our policy regarding Cuba because it is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. If we want to see an end to socialism and totalitarian rule in Cuba, lift the embargo.

Top Stories

Communism is coming to an End in Cuba

Cubans to get title to state-owned homes

April 12. 2008 Associated Press

HAVANA -- Thousands of Cubans will be able to get title to government-owned homes under regulations published Friday –A step that might lay the groundwork for broader housing reform.

My Commentary: This should be a cause for celebration; not dancing in the streets celebration but at least a high-five. Communism is ending in Cuba. The process may be slow but it is starting. Cubans are still not allowed to sell their homes to anyone but the government, but they get title, they do not lose their homes when they change jobs, and they can pass their home down to their children. Who can doubt that more change is not on the way? This will lead to wealth creation, home loans, home improvements and a Home Depot.

This change in policy allowing Cubans to own their own home came a day after another important announcement that ended the maximum wage limit in Cuba. Earlier this month, the new Cuban president opened the way for ordinary Cubans to own cell phones.

America could speed up the process of change in Cuba if we would only end our senseless embargo. The embargo at one time made sense, but that day has long ago passed. Because the embargo may have been logical when Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union, does not mean that we should stick with that policy forever. There certainly has been no justification for our policy ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our policy has meant that Cuba could blame all of their failings on the US embargo and the US had no opportunity to have influence in Cuba. We trade with China and Vietnam, why not Cuba? What is the logic of our current policy?

If American dollars could flow freely to Cuba, we would see concession on the part of Cuba to accommodate investors. With opportunities to make money, we would see an evolving entrepreneurial class. With more dollars to spend, Cubans would not be dependent on the government for everything, other spheres of influence would emerge and the socialist totalitarianism mold would be broken. Even if Cuba remained an authoritarian one-party state for some time, they would become Communist in name only. A little freedom leads to a demand for more freedom. Cuba is changing despite the policy of the United States. We should help accelerate the change that is taking place in Cuba by ending the embargo now.

Someone needs to tell President Bush the Cold War is over. If President Bush were a bright fellow and a statesman, he would use today’s announcement about the change in the homeownership policy in Cuba as an occasion to say that we were encouraged by the reforms occurring in Cuba and as of Monday, we were lifting the embargo and would be looking for ways to facilitate trade and friendship between our two nations.

Top Stories

Will Obama's Stance on Cuba Hurt?

By Tim Padgett/Miami
(This is a good analysis and insight on Obama's bold Cuban policy initiative. Rod)
Conventional political wisdom in the bellwether state of Florida has always focused on Cuban-Americans, especially those influential exiles who take a hard line against any U.S. engagement with Fidel Castro's Cuba. Cross them, says the presidential candidate handbook, and say adios to the Sunshine State's 27 electoral votes.

So why would Barack Obama — who is scraping to keep up with Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — ignore that seemingly golden rule? Why, in a Tuesday op-ed piece in the Miami Herald, would he challenge the Cuban-American elders and call for dismantling President Bush's hefty restrictions on Cuban-Americans making visits and sending money to relatives in Cuba?

Maybe it's because Obama knows a new conventional wisdom may well be taking shape in the state — one that could actually make his declarations this week an asset when Florida holds its primary election next January. (Continue reading: Will Obama's Stance..)

Top Stories

Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba

Miami Herald, Tue. Aug 21, 2007
By BARACK OBAMA

When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father's story is not unique. The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent -- including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here since the start of Fidel Castro's dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. (To continue reading: Our Main Goal....)

My Commentary
I agree with Mr. Obama and applaud him for having he courage to call for a change in our policy toward Cuba. The only other presidential candidates breaking with the status quo is Democrat Chris Dodd and Republican Ron Paul. (For a summary of the position of all presidential candidates visit: The Candidates on Cuba Policy)

It is a past time for a change in US policy toward Cuba. At one time, when Cuba was sending its army around the world and fomenting revolution in Africa and Latin America our policy made sense. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of Cuba’s benefactor the Soviet Union, there has been little logic to our policy. Our current policy is a relic of the cold war and remains due to the political might of the Cuban-American Community. The restriction on tourism lacks all logic when Americans are not prohibited from visiting countries such as Iran or North Korea.

The thing that makes totalitarian governments “totalitarian” is that there are no other meaningful spheres of influence. When total power and influence flows from the government and there is no private business sector, no non-governmental educational establishment, weak religious institutions, no trade unions, no sources of information other than the government press, then that society is totalitarian. The government can exert absolute authority and exercise thought control and make people totally dependent on the government for their survival.

Political democracy may not immediately flow from the growth of the non-governmental sectors, but there is a degree of freedom one can have without political freedom when there are other influences in society than government only. With the growth of the non-governmental sectors a demand for democratization is bound to follow. In Poland we saw the fall of the Communist regime due to the power of Solidarity and the Catholic Church. Trade has changed China. China is still an authoritarian government but is Communist in name only. It is doubtful that we could again see a return to a Maoist China.

What will hasten the democratization of Cuba is contact with people from democratic countries and increase in trade. With trade and investment can come a demand that the Cuban government make concessions. Foreign investors will not make massive investments in countries without a predictable legal system and some guarantee to the ownership rights of their investment.

As Cubans increase their income from tourism and foreign trade opportunities, they will want a better standard of living and consumer goods to purchase with their new income. Creeping capitalism will weaken the state. The people will also learn more of the outside world and increasing want an end to the status of permanent revolution and the policies that keep them in poverty. Simply allowing Cuban Americans to increase the amount of money they are allowed to send home and allowing increased visitation, will hasten a lessening of dependence on the government and a desire for change on the part of the Cuban people. It is high time we end our illogical policy toward Cuba.

Top Stories